Tag Archive for 'Digital Music'

How Collective Idiocy Left the Record Companies in Bits

Published on March 26, 2008 in Article and Blog. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted On: The Guardian

“When the history of our digital times comes to be written, one of the questions that will puzzle historians is why the record companies missed the significance of the internet.”

What a great thought (and a very catchy headline). Here is a summary of the article, with some commentary.

Since World War II, the record industry had a total monopoly on the recording, packaging, and distribution of music. They controlled the careers or artists, the way the music was disseminated, and dictated terms to music retailers. When the CD came around in the early 1980′s, and as the article says “recording studios converted the sounds made by musicians into bitstreams – long sequences of ones and zeroes – while, at the consumer end, CD players converted those bits back into high-fidelity sound.”

The sales model for this era was to create the plastic disks and packaging, ship them distribution houses, and then off to retailers. While this model proved to be profitable, the overhead costs were astronomical, with up to 50% of the retail price of a CD eaten up by production costs.

The internet was poised to change all of this for major labels. It presented the opportunity to drop production costs to the floor, while expanding profits. But the internet was ignored at first, and then it was treated as a realm for legal prosecution. Even bands chimed in, complaining about the evils of the internet. This practice got so widespread that the RIAA began prosecuting teenagers and single moms. And as the industry resisted the internet, CD sales bottomed out.

To put it simply, the major labels did not want to let go of CDs in the face of an evolving marketplace. Rather than adapt to the climate, they attempted to maintain the status quo. The writer of the article states “The obvious hypothesis – that the senior executives of all the record companies were idiots – has always seemed implausible to me. Or it did until I read the recent interview in Wired magazine with Doug Morris, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group.”

Because CDs were so profitable, the music industry turned a blind eye to what was next, and settled into a short sighted approoch rather than looking at the big picture.

Bottom Line: The record industry can turn itself around virtually overnight by embracing and adapting to technology. Welcome to the Future.

The End of The Music Industry As We Know It?

Published on March 20, 2008 in Article and Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Spotted on: Digital Music News

The folks at Forrester Research recently published an 18 page paper on the decade long decline in music sales. The article points to the idea that the shift in music sales is permanent, thanks to the Internet. I haven’t read the paper, but thanks to the blogosphere, information abounds.

The Forrester paper predicts half of all music sales will be digital by 2011, but that the boost will not make up for lost revenue in CD sales.

The paper predicts that subscription services will only grow “modestly”, and (no surprise here) that DRM will die.

In other words, technology is the future of the music business.

A synopsis on Cnet points to some of the concrete data in the report:
“A Q3 2007 survey of more than 5,000 U.S. adults with online access showed that 94% of them still listen to the radio, and on average spend 43% of their overall audio-listening time with radio–far ahead of #2, CDs, which occupy only 20% of listeners’ time.” – Radio and streaming audio are still powerful tools for listeners, and in the era of choice, people are exercising their freedom to choose.

“…the survey showed that 62% of the subjects listen to music files on a PC, while only 43% of them listen to music on an MP3 player. Even 48% of them listen to Internet radio.” – True convenience isn’t defined by product availability or features, it’s defined by the individual.

The paper also suggests that corporate sponsorship and advertising will become a major factor in platinum music success.

While this is a comprehensive analysis of the music industry, it’s not really new information. Technology has become the key to the future of music, and I believe that the future of music will be more artists selling less albums. Labels will have less investing in broader catalogs, and artists’ will become more business minded, using the resources of labels instead of being exploited by them.

Bottom Line: The music industry isn’t collapsing, it’s evolving. Welcome to the future.

Artist Turns to BitTorrent when his Music is Pirated by iTunes

Published on March 12, 2008 in Blog. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted on: TorrentFreak

An interview with the Flashbulb about his recent calamity with iTunes, and putting his album up on BitTorrent. It turns out iTunes is selling his albums without permission, and not paying royalties.

The Flashbulb (Benn Jordan) has been releasing albums for 14 years, the last 5 have included various commercial endeavors. The label deal he has is a 50/50 split, but he hasn’t been seeing the money. Benn says he has no agreement with iTunes to sell his music, and many of his fans have told him they bought his music there. When he investigated the issue further, his label asked him to drop it, and his calls went unreturned.

Here’s a great quote from Benn: “Who’s the pirate I should go after? A kid who downloads my album because it isn’t available in non-DRM format and costs $30 on Amazon? Or a huge multi-billion dollar corporation that has been selling thousands of dollars worth of my music and not even acknowledging it?”

Benn is being labeled in the press as pro-piracy, but his true stand is that people buy what they like. “What I’m promoting is the artist’s freedom to choose what can and can’t be done with his/her music, and more importantly, the listener’s freedom to do what he/she wants with their own computer, MP3 player, or internet connection.”

Benn makes a poignant case that the RIAA has spent so long dictating people’s taste and choices that they are now threatened by the opportunity for people to choose the music they want. He suggests that “music will be judged by it’s content again and will be subjected to it’s own Darwinism.”

Bottom Line: Where are all those billions in album sales really going?

Is Trent Reznor Reshaping the Music Business?

Published on March 4, 2008 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Syndicated from: Digital Music News – by Paul Resnikoff

Ghosts is a variation on a theme created by Radiohead. The latest NIN album is part free, part paid, part digital, and part traditional. And a broad range of consumer preferences and budgets are accommodated by the initiative.

Reznor and Radiohead are important market-movers and fearless risk-takers. But are these experiments really relevant to the broader music industry?

The problem is that only part of the consumer population is going to play along. Radiohead found that a disproportionate number of fans downloaded In Rainbows for free, an offered option. But an even larger number of fans downloaded the album for free outside of the Radiohead page, on BitTorrent, P2P, and other sharing protocols.

These fans wanted the album on their turf, not Radiohead’s. And that has been the bigger story for the recording industry for the past ten years. Sure, the iTunes Store has sold 4 billion downloads, but that is just a tiny fraction of the free downloads obtained from other channels.

Outlets like Limewire offer instant, on-demand bulk downloads and comprehensive recording catalogs for free. The iTunes Store offers a cleaner copy, but for a price that makes collection volume difficult to achieve.

Now, Trent Reznor is about to learn a similar lesson. Most likely, fans will grab the first, free volume of the album in heavy numbers, and a smaller percentage will pay for the expanded collection.

But that is only part of the story. Outside of that sandbox, volumes II-IV will quickly creep onto Gnutella, BitTorrent, and IM. Sure, Reznor seeded the first volume onto BitTorrent. But who are we kidding? Fans are in charge of this channel, not Reznor.

That means far lower volumes for NIN, or any other established artist, compared to the 90s. Other factors are also sapping energy, including an increasingly-fragmented media market, and the lowered attention spans that come with it.

Then again, who needs 90s volumes when the major label is suddenly optional? After all, Reznor can now keep the revenues (almost) all to himself, and achieve robust revenues on far smaller volumes.

The math is alluring, and a major disincentive for signing with a label. Marketing specialist Seth Godin urges artists to cultivate targeted, niche audiences, and any business school graduate will lecture you on the value of consumer targeting. Why not translate those principles and percentages into a healthy, more controllable career?

The question is becoming less and less academic, and artists like Trent Reznor are putting the possibilities into motion. But it remains unclear if artists can healthily sustain themselves using this philosophy, at least in scalable numbers.

And smaller artists will have difficulty applying the Radiohead model, at least until their recognition grows. Why? The reason is that most lesser-known artists have trouble getting people to download their content for free, much less pay for it. Why pay for something blind? That is a game for pre-2000 consumers.

In contrast, Reznor and Radiohead have established names, thanks to a massive, major label publicity machine. That tailwind is a critical component of the current models – and a major reason why media outlets are focusing heavily on their initiatives.

In the middle are artists like Saul Williams, a poet and rapper that exists outside of the mainstream. Reznor actually helped Williams create a Radiohead-like model with the help of Musicane, and the results were mixed. Less than 20 percent opted to pay $5 for the album – a total of nearly 28,000. Then again, that translates into roughly $142,000, a revenue total that easily pays the bills.

And any starving artist knows that six-figures is a goldmine for a life in the arts. A major would drop Williams in a heartbeat after a performance like that. But sailing solo, Williams could command a decent and consistent payout.

So is the Radiohead model relevant? For more established, post-label artists, the concept probably maximizes recording profits, and creates momentum for other revenue generators. And the results are boosted if the recordings are dispersed across a broad number of sales outlets, including the artist page, iTunes, Amazon MP3, and even traditional brick-n-mortar.

Sure, the result is smaller than 90s recording sales potentials, but it is something nonetheless. And if the consumer elects to pay, they have the opportunity to do so.
What about everyone else? For mid-size artists, the concept can translate into meaningful revenues, and for smaller artists, the idea is probably premature ahead of broader audience awareness. But more than ever, artists have the potential to reach super-targeted audiences, and that greatly increases the chances of a paid transaction.

What Happens to Music Collections When They’re Just Collections?

Published on February 27, 2008 in Blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , .

Inspired on: The Campus Word

This article looks at the impact that huge MP3 collections has on our perception and enjoyment of music, and really got me thinking.

Music has value because it moves us. That special album that takes us back to some magic moment, or the songs we love to dance to. What has people by albums us the love of the music.

MP3 collecting is similar to collecting baseball cards. Grab an artist’s entire discography, and trade among your peers. Our music collections expand almost as fast as the national debt, and often music sits on our hard drives unlistened, unappreciated, and unacknowledged. We become overwhelmed with the amount of music we have to listen to, and start to lose our love for the music that touches us.

When music is downloaded and listened to only once or twice, it becomes a single serving item, like a hamburger. The joy of music is in the artistic expression, and the way we are moved when we hear something we love.

Could the current frenzy of MP3 downloading (both legal and illegal) be eliminating our love for music? There’s a phenomenon known as information overload. One way to look at the current consumption of MP3s is that music is in an information overload stage.

With so much music to choose from, both free and bought, and huge MP3 collections, the line between having music we love and having music because its there is getting blurred.

Most of the time, we relate to this in terms of album sales, and the music industry. What if we looked it as a shift in the perception of music? While music is always special, it’s apparent that we are now starting to view it as a thing to have. What effect this will have on our appreciation of music is anybody’s guess. Based on the habits of the general public, music is losing it’s intrinsic value as art, and becoming more like a piece of furniture.

Bottom line: We used to buy CDs because we loved the music. It is starting to appear that we now collect MP3s because they’re accessible.